Hi every body, My question is: In vectored DSL transmission; what are the main drawbacks of reducing the length of the cyclic prefix ?, I suggest the increase of NEXT (Near end crosstalk) but if that is the case, is it possible to relay on windowing and puls shaping to overcome the effect of NEXT. Thank you AMAY
Cyclic suffix in xDSL
Started by ●January 24, 2008
Reply by ●January 25, 20082008-01-25
AMAY wrote:> Hi every body, > My question is: In vectored DSL transmission; what are the main drawbacks > of reducing the length of the cyclic prefix ?, I suggest the increase of > NEXT (Near end crosstalk) but if that is the case, is it possible to relay > on windowing and puls shaping to overcome the effect of NEXT.That is interesting. Could you explain a bit more how reducing the cyclic prefix will decrease NEXT? Guenter
Reply by ●January 30, 20082008-01-30
>AMAY wrote: >> Hi every body, >> My question is: In vectored DSL transmission; what are the maindrawbacks>> of reducing the length of the cyclic prefix ?, I suggest the increaseof>> NEXT (Near end crosstalk) but if that is the case, is it possible torelay>> on windowing and puls shaping to overcome the effect of NEXT. > >That is interesting. Could you explain a bit more how reducing the >cyclic prefix will decrease NEXT? > >GuenterAccording to my understanding, pending a CS to a DMT block at the transmission side delayes the transmission process untill the receiption of another DMT block is completed, by this way the IFFT process (in trasmission) do not happen at the same time of FFT process(in receiption), hence no interference (no NEXT). AMAY